Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |  [ show all ]
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #20295188 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil said:
How do you define "political spending"?


Giving to a political candidate or party committee.  :shrug:


So, you're happy with the current state of the law, it seems.  There are limits to how much any one person can contribute to a candidate or party committee.  These limits have been in place for a long time, and Citizens United changed nothing in this regard.

I assume you have no problem with people spending unlimited money advertising for or against a candidate, as long as they don't give it directly to the party or candidate.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20295226 -

The biggest grief is in regards to super pacs, and associated "shadow money."

The Koch brothers run Americans For Prosperity, a conservative "nonprofit" that funnels money to GOP candidates everywhere. But because they are (hardly) a step removed, it's completely different than them wiring money directly to Scott Walker.


For everyone's convenience: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #20295604 -

The Ecstatic said:
The biggest grief is in regards to super pacs, and associated "shadow money."


Falcon doesn't seem to have a problem with pacs, super or otherwise.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20295607 -

The Ecstatic said:
The biggest grief is in regards to super pacs, and associated "shadow money."

The Koch brothers run Americans For Prosperity, a conservative "nonprofit" that funnels money to GOP candidates everywhere. But because they are (hardly) a step removed, it's completely different than them wiring money directly to Scott Walker.


That's exactly right.  Enlil, you can't possibly favor campaign spending limits and support the Citizens United ruling at the same time.  Super PACs give anyone the ability to spend as much as they like on their favorite candidate, while hiding those contributions at the time they are made.  Campaign spending limits have become meaningless.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #20295744 -

To be fair, they were pretty meaningless before, but the 2010 ruling opened the floodgates.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #20295754 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
That's exactly right.  Enlil, you can't possibly favor campaign spending limits and support the Citizens United ruling at the same time.  Super PACs give anyone the ability to spend as much as they like on their favorite candidate, while hiding those contributions at the time they are made.  Campaign spending limits have become meaningless.


What are you talking about?  You just said that you consider political spending to mean giving to candidates or political parties.  Citizen's United didn't have any effect on either of those.  PACs spend money independent of candidates and parties.  According to you, that isn't political spending.

If you're changing your definition now to include independent expenditures made in support or against a political candidate, that's fine...but now producing shows like Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh are included in that.  Is that what you really want, to limit the ability of people to spend money to advocate a political position?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20295850 -

I don't think it would be too difficult to discern between a flood of issue based advertisements and a cable television show.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #20295877 -

Not difficult at all...All it takes is someone with the discretion to decide what is and isn't allowed.  The only problem is how do you keep that person honest and objective?  Oh yeah...with BRIGHT LINE RULES...

I don't think you've thought this through at all, but I am interested in where you draw the line.  I think it's important to know that to promote understanding.  If you would, I'd appreciate you letting me know, under your ideal set of rules, which of the following would be allowed or not allowed.  You can just reply with a list of numbers that would be allowed and another list that wouldn't be.  I welcome any additional information, but I understand if it's too much.  Here is the list:

1. Me standing on a corner holding a sign in favor of gay marriage
2. Me painting a similar sign on a van and driving it around.
3. Me hiring someone to drive that van around.
4. Me renting a fleet of vans, putting signs on them, and hiring people to drive them around.
5. Me renting billboards with my sign on it.
6. Me purchasing a superbowl ad showing only a still of the sign.
7. Me purchasing a superbowl ad with a still and a voiceover.
8. Me purchasing a superbowl ad with a still and a celebrity voiceover.
9. Me Purchasing a superbowl ad showing the celebrity advocating in favor of gay marriage.
10. Me hiring a celebrity to advocate for gay marriage every week for an hour on television.

Which of those would be allowed or not allowed?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20295915 -

Tough question to answer.

I think when you start paying other people to voice your ideals it becomes an issue.

Even still, I believe there should be a monetary limit on issue/politically based advertising, in any medium.

Sure, we all only get one vote. But when one guy can buy up billboard and tv slots to push his view, and the other guy can't, it mucks things up a bit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #20295948 -

The Ecstatic said:
Sure, we all only get one vote. But when one guy can buy up billboard and tv slots to push his view, and the other guy can't, it mucks things up a bit.


I agree, which is why pacs are so important.  Without pacs, only the rich could afford to do that.  Pacs allow many people with less money to still have a voice.

Rush Limbaugh is paid to advocate a party line...as is Jon Stewart.  You can't really say that they aren't without being intellectually dishonest. 

Most importantly, however, is that you can't even really draw a line that you're comfortable with.  You're not exceptional in this regard, so how do we, as a society, decide an acceptable place for the line?  We're not talking about trivial shit here...This is a balance between freedom of political speech and equal political representation.  Both of these are fundamental and essential parts of any republic.

For me, the answer is more speech.  Anything we can do to give more options for speech, the better.  PACs allow groups of lower income people to pool resources and be heard.  I see that as a good thing.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20296128 -

You're right in that it's difficult to know where to draw a line. Do you think our current line is helping keep speech and representation in balance? Would you change anything if you could?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #20296199 -

The Ecstatic said:
The Koch brothers run Americans For Prosperity, a conservative "nonprofit" that funnels money to GOP candidates everywhere.


KOCK BROTHERS ALERT!  OH MY GOD, THE BOGEY MAN IS ON THE LOOSE!!!!




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: starfire_xes]
    #20296244 -

starfire_xes said:
The Ecstatic said:
The Koch brothers run Americans For Prosperity, a conservative "nonprofit" that funnels money to GOP candidates everywhere.


KOCK BROTHERS ALERT!  OH MY GOD, THE BOGEY MAN IS ON THE LOOSE!!!!





Do they not?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #20296274 -

I think the balance does, and must, heavily favor speech.  This is because speech leads to more equitable representation.  Speech is a prerequisite for it.  Politicians cannot act in the interests of people if those people cannot make their interests known.

Truthfully, campaign advertising isn't the evil.  The real evil is the fact that most voters are too stupid to separate rhetoric from reality.  Critical thinking is a rare commodity in this nation, and unless we start raising generations of people who question stuff they hear on youtube, commercials, etc...that's always going to be the case.

The internet only makes things worse because more information means more false information.  Do a search for 9/11 conspiracy and you will find literally 1000s of sites out there with the same verifiably false information...yet there it is spreading like wildfire.  The only cure for false information is accurate information. 

So here we sit...a species programmed to believe what we are told and poorly educated on ways to overcome that programming and think critically.  We can pander to that weakness and create a clan of paternal bureaucrats to decide what information is and isn't suitable for human consumption, or we can shoot for the ideal and try to raise the population above its weaknesses.  For me, I choose the latter.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20296302 -

How do we raise the population above the said weakness? How is accurate and truly informed information going to make its way to the people?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: DeadHearts]
    #20296330 -

It's already out there, and more is out there every day.

As far as how to help the population navigate information better, it could be as simple as incorporating critical thinking into primary education.  Teach students to question the textbook and fact check it.  Encourage debate about the accuracy of information.  A generation or two of people educated like that, and the nation would be a very different place.  Advertising would be very different, too.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20296403 -

Enlil said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Enlil, you can't possibly favor campaign spending limits and support the Citizens United ruling at the same time.  Super PACs give anyone the ability to spend as much as they like on their favorite candidate, while hiding those contributions at the time they are made.  Campaign spending limits have become meaningless.


What are you talking about?  You just said that you consider political spending to mean giving to candidates or political parties.  Citizen's United didn't have any effect on either of those.  PACs spend money independent of candidates and parties.  According to you, that isn't political spending.

If you're changing your definition now to include independent expenditures made in support or against a political candidate, that's fine...but now producing shows like Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh are included in that.  Is that what you really want, to limit the ability of people to spend money to advocate a political position?


Let me try to clarify my position.  There should be a per person spending limit on political contributions that support individuals and political parties.  When advertisers pay to promote their product on Rush Limbaugh, they're not spending money to promote Rush Limbaugh; they're spending money to promote their product.  People would listen to Rush regardless of the advertising.  In Hollywood, people voluntarily pay to watch a movie, Hollywood doesn't pay them to watch it (THAT would be a problem).

Political infomercials, on the other hand, should have spending limits, because they are paying to promote a message.  If a lot of people pool their money to pay for airing an infomercial, then I'm ok with that.  If one person spends a lot of money to air it, then I'm not.

Perhaps my logic can be better understood using your examples.  I'm ok with every example that doesn't take a lot of money from one person:

1. Me standing on a corner holding a sign in favor of gay marriage - Ok
2. Me painting a similar sign on a van and driving it around - Ok
3. Me hiring someone to drive that van around. - Ok (if it's within the individual contribution limit)
4. Me renting a fleet of vans, putting signs on them, and hiring people to drive them around. - Not ok, unless it is paid for by a pool of money, where no one person contributed more than the individual contribution limit.
5. Me renting billboards with my sign on it - Same as #4
6. Me purchasing a superbowl ad showing only a still of the sign. - Same as #4
7. Me purchasing a superbowl ad with a still and a voiceover. Same as #4
8. Me purchasing a superbowl ad with a still and a celebrity voiceover. - Same as #4
9. Me Purchasing a superbowl ad showing the celebrity advocating in favor of gay marriage. - Same as #4
10. Me hiring a celebrity to advocate for gay marriage every week for an hour on television. - Same as #4

I hope that helps explain my position.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20296425 -

Enlil said:
PACs allow groups of lower income people to pool resources and be heard.  I see that as a good thing.


I agree that's a good thing, and it falls under what I've just explained I personally believe is acceptable.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #20296436 -

What about if I purchase land and put a billboard on it?

Or purchase a TV station and broadcast my advertisements on it?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: BODY SLAM! Supreme Court Takedown of Barry--9 to 0. [Re: Enlil]
    #20296476 -

Enlil said:
What about if I purchase land and put a billboard on it?

Or purchase a TV station and broadcast my advertisements on it?


If you purchase land for the purpose of political advertising, it should also meet the criteria of being under the individual spending limit (purchasing the land using a pool of money would be ok).

If you broadcast advertisements on your own tv station, it should meet the same cost rules (if you're losing more than the contribution limit, then it shouldn't be allowed).


I'm sure there are grey areas where this decision is more difficult, but those are good general guidelines to me.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Supreme Court ruling: police may now use drug sniffing dogs during routine traffic stops SWEDEN 2,502 15 01/29/05 05:00 PM
by Swami
* Supreme Court to weigh medical marijuana laws
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 4,430 33 12/17/04 05:13 AM
by Lothar121
* Supreme Court to hear 'Pledge' Case
( 1 2 all )		 afoaf 2,737 26 10/16/03 07:03 PM
by afoaf
* The Supreme Court likes treats! afoaf 1,060 4 03/03/04 04:42 PM
by mabus
* Interesting Supreme Court case Baby_Hitler 1,044 13 04/01/04 05:28 PM
by Baby_Hitler
* Supreme Court Legalized Child Porn.
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 5,249 31 06/08/02 02:59 AM
by Anonymous
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 993 11 06/27/03 04:12 PM
by Anonymous
* Libertarians and The Supreme Court JesusChrist 317 2 11/03/04 01:53 AM
by JesusChrist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
11,904 topic views. 4 members, 28 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.